In Miller v. Regions Bank, No. 2:24-cv-1324-HDM (N.D. Ala. May 21, 2026), Alabama District Judge Harold D. Mooty III, stating: “Lawyers make errors. Competent and ethical lawyers own them” imposed “career-altering sanctions” including a public reprimand, disqualification from the case, referral to licensing authorities, and a six-month suspension from practice for “intentionally delet[ing] his ChatGPT account in order to destroy evidence of AI misuse”.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case, Plaintiff’s attorney H. Gregory Harp filed a response brief opposing summary judgment on behalf of Plaintiff, but he included four quotations which – although they were attributed to legitimate appellate decisions – the quotations themselves did not exist in the cited cases. The court conducted its own review and concluded that the quotations were fabricated. As a result, the court issued a show cause order requiring Harp to explain why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11, the court’s inherent authority, local rules, and Alabama professional conduct rules.

Judge Mooty emphasized that the court was “not sanctioning Attorney Harp merely for using generative AI,” explaining that “[a]ttorneys may use such tools responsibly.” Instead, the sanctionable conduct included “submission of false legal authority, lack of reasonable inquiry, lack of candor to the court, and destruction of evidence during the ensuing sanctions investigation.”

Initially, Harp denied that AI drafted the offending material, stating that he used ChatGPT only “to do a general search” and insisting that AI hadn’t “wrote a single word” of the brief. Judge Moody became increasingly suspicious as Harp equivocated about whether ChatGPT generated the quotations and admitted he had not reviewed his ChatGPT history. When he ordered Harp to produce screenshots of his ChatGPT history for in camera review, Harp subsequently informed the court that the account had been deleted, and the files were “no longer available.”

After Judge Moody ordered him to produce documentation related to his subscription and termination of his ChatGPT account, subsequent produced emails revealed that Harp had purchased a paid ChatGPT Plus subscription only four days before filing the brief at issue, contradicting his earlier testimony that he had used the free version of ChatGPT. It also became apparent that Harp deleted his ChatGPT account on April 23, 2026 – three days after being ordered to produce his ChatGPT history – and even sought a prorated refund so that access to the account would terminate immediately instead of remaining active through the billing cycle (where the history could have still been produced).

Judge Mooty wrote that Harp “affirmatively took multiple steps to delete his account before the production deadline,” which “supports a strong inference that Attorney Harp acted in bad faith to prevent the court from obtaining evidence directly bearing on the issues raised in the show cause proceedings.” Eventually, Harp conceded that he could “offer no grounds for the avoidance of sanctions and a finding of civil contempt.”

Judge Mooty then turned to the broader implications of fabricated AI-generated legal citations. Quoting his own prior decisions, he warned that fake citations “pose a serious threat to the fair administration of justice and the integrity of the judicial system.” He stressed that even when “lawyers who cite AI hallucinations accept responsibility and apologize profusely, much damage is done”.

Applying spoliation principles and its inherent authority, Judge Mooty concluded that Harp acted in bad faith when he deleted his ChatGPT account after receiving a direct preservation and production order. He found that the destruction of evidence justified an adverse inference that the missing ChatGPT history would have demonstrated that the fabricated quotations were generated by ChatGPT.

Noting that harsher sanctions were warranted because Harp chose “dishonesty over candor and destruction over disclosure”, Judge Mooty imposed “career-altering sanctions”. Harp was publicly reprimanded, ordered to distribute the opinion to clients, opposing counsel, and judges in every pending case in which he appeared, disqualified from further participation in the Miller case, suspended from practicing in the Northern District of Alabama for six months, and referred to the Alabama State Bar and other disciplinary authorities.

In addition to the “career-altering sanctions”, Judge Mooty added this statement:

“When lawyers are caught submitting AI-generated misrepresentations to the court, they have two options: they can either admit to their mistakes and show contrition, or they can attempt to cover up their mistakes and demonstrate a weakness of character unsuited to the legal profession. If they choose the former path, they will likely preserve their standing before the court. If they choose the latter, they may well lose their career.”

So, what do you think? Are you surprised that the court issued “career-altering sanctions” in response to the attorney’s misconduct? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today. Hat tip to Judge Andrew Peck (ret.) for the heads up on this case!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.